S/PV.2492 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at the 248 1st meeting, I invite the President of the Council for Namibia and the other members ‘of the delegation of the Council to take places at the Security Council table. Provisional agenda (SIAgendaI2492) At the invitation of the President, Mr. Lusaka (President of the United Nations Council for Namibia) and the other members of the delegation took pIaces at the Council table. 1. Adoption of the agenda 2. The situation in Namibia: (a) Letter dated 17 October 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations addressed. to the President of the Security Council (S/16048); (b) Letter dated 18 October 1983 from the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations addressed. to the President of the Security Council (s/16051); (c) Further report of the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) conceming the question of Namibia (S/15943)

In accordance with the decision taken at the 248 1st meeting, I invite Mr. Mueshihange to take a place at the Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mueshihange took a pIace at the Council table.

In accordance with decisions taken at the 2481st to 2486th, 2488th and 2490th meetings, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zambia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. The meeting was called to order at 1.40 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation In Namibia: Letter dated 17 October 1983 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/16048); Letter dated 18 October 1983 from the Permalrent Representative of India to the United Nations addressed to the President of th$ Security Council (S/16051); Further report of the Secretary-General concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) concerning the question of Namibia (S/15943) At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sahnoun (Algeria), Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Mu& (Argentina), Mr. Legwaila (Botswana), Mr. Tsvetkov (Bulgaria)), Mr. PeIIetier (Carunkt), Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Kuhnviec (CzechosIovakia), Mr. lbrahim (Ethiopia), Mr. Ott (German Demo cratic Republic), Mr. van WeII (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Somogyi (Hungary), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. RajaieKhorassani (Islamic RepubIic of Iran), Mr. Wabuge (Kenya), Mr. Abulhassan (Kuwait), Mr. Treiki (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Mr. Muiioz Ledo (Mexico), Mr. DOS Santos (Mozambique), Mr. Fafowora (Nigeria), Mr. Arias SteIIa (Pet@, Mr. Koroma (Sierra Leone), Mr. von Schimding (South Africa), Mr. Fonseka (Sri Lanka), Mr. AbdaIIa (Sudan), Mr. El-Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Slim (Tunisia), Mr. Kirca (Turkey), Mr. Otunnu (Uganda), Mr. Rupia (United Republic of Tanzania), Mr. Martini

In accordance with the decision taken at the 2481st meeting, I invite the representative of Senegal to take a place at the Council table.

The members of the Council have before them document 6. The first speaker is the representative of Uganda. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, I am grateful to you and to the other members of the Council for allowing my delegation to participate in this debate on the question of Namibia. May I, at the outset, extend to you the warm greetings and congratulations of the delegation of Uganda. During these very trying times for the intemational community, we are grateful to see a man of your great experience and skill at the helm of the Council. 8. To my brother, Mr. Noel Sinclair of Guyana, who preceded you in the presidency, I wish to pay a very special tribute. September was a very busy and difficult month for the Council and we followed with great admiration and pride the brilliant and most able leadership provided by Mr. Sinclair. 9. I take this opportunity as well to pay a warm tribute to the Secretary-General and his staff for their tireless efforts in favour of independence for Namibia. The report before the Council [s/15943 is sufficient testimony to those efforts. , lb. Many times the delegation of Uganda has addressed the Council on the question of Namibia. Many times my delegation has recounted the chequered and tortured history of Namibia-that history of promises broken, of resolutions unimplemented and of trust betrayed.’ But today I do not intend to labour those issues. 11. Today the delegation of Uganda has asked to participate in this debate principally because of one issue, namely, this thing called “‘linkage”. This concept, by which some people are seeking to link the independence of Namibia with the ‘withdrawal of Cuban troops frqm Angola, is a recurring theme in the Secretary-General’s report. It is plain fr%m the report that virtually all issues contemplated under the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia have been resolved. Yet, concerning the implementation of the plan, the Secretary-General has made the observation that the position of South Africa regarding the issue of the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola as a precondition for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) still makes it impossible to launch the United Nations plan.” [Ibid., para. 25.1 12. There is no doubt that South Africa has embraced linkage as one more pretext for delaying the independence of Namibia. .But the genesis of linkage is deeper and reaches beyond South Africa. “The question of a Cuban withdrawal was never an issue in the seemingly interminable negotiations that South Africa held with five Western nations for four years, starting in 1977, over the future of the Territory. “It remained in the background, as far as the South Africans were concerned, until June of last year when William P. Clark, who was then Deputy Secretary of State visited here [Pretoria] “ . . ‘ “According to the version heard here, the South Africans were asked if they would feel any differently about a settlement under United Nations auspices if the United States undertook to guarantee that it would be accompanied by a Cuban withdrawal. “That, as the South Africans now relate the diplomatic history of the last 13 months, was the beginning of a meeting of minds between Pretoria and Washington that led South Africa to drop virtually every one of the procedural demands and quibbles that it had thrown in the face of the Carter Administration to forestall a settlement.** In the same article, Mr. Lelyveld quoted a South African Government official as having said: “This was something the Americans initiated, wanted and pursued.*’ 14. In its editorial of 8 July 1982 entitled “Opportunity knocks in Namibia”, The New York Times quoted Mr. Chester Cracker, the United States Assistant Secretary of State, as having stated, concerning linkage “The issues are now linked in the minds of policy makers”. By introducing the concept of linkage in this way the United States has placed an embargo on the independence of Namibia. 15. The proponents of linkage have made a great issue of the presence of Cuban military personnel in Angola. In this connection, what are the facts on the ground7 Let us consider them. 16. Neither Angolan nor Cuban troops have ever encroached on South African territory. On the contrary, it is South African troops which have continued to occupy the territory of Angola in Cunene Province since the invasion of August 1981. 17. No Angolan or Cuban troops have ever entered the territory of Namibia. On the contrary, it is South African troops which have continued the illegal occupation of Namibia since the General Assembly, by its resolution 2145 (XXI), terminated South Africa’s Mandate over the Territory in 1966. Those who wish to see genuine regional peace and security in southern Africa must therefore begin by addressing themselves to the aggressor-the aggressor, who is the source of the problem-instead of pointing a false linger at the victims of aggression and occupation. 19. Geographtcally, Angola and South Africa do not even share a common border. It is South Africa which continues to use the territory of Namibia as a launchingpad for aggression and a training ground for subversives and mercenaries. 27. Never before have the people of Namibia come so close to the achievement of the goal of independence. In this connection, the Secretary-General has stated in his report: 20. It is inconceivable that a few thousand Angolan and Cuban troops could pose a threat to South Africa, which is the foremost military Power in the region, with an annual military budget of approximately $US 3 billion and a military build-up which has now reached the level of over 200,000 regular troops and a total of 480,000 persons in a state of present or potential mobilization. 28. After 100 years of struggle in the wilderness of foreign occupation, a struggle in which many heroes and many innocent lives have been lost, the people of Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), have reached the threshold of the promised land-the land of independence. How cruel it is that at precisely this historic moment a new barrier-the barrier of linkage-has suddenly been erected to keep the people of Namibia from the promised land. 21. It is equally inconceivable, moreover, that a few thousand Cuban troops in Angola could in any way atTect what has often been described as the “vital interests” of the United States. 22. In any case, both Cuba and Angola have publicly declared, most notably in the commumqu6 of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of both countries, issued on 4 February 1982, their intention to pull out Cuban troops provided that the security of Angola is assured. 29. Once again the dream of the Namibian people has been deferred. It was the American poet, Langston Hughes, who reflected on thii theme in his poem entitled “What happens to a dream deferred?” Because of the relevance of the message of Langston Hughes to the present discussion, I should like to quote his words: 23. It is clear from that survey of the facts that the situation on the ground in southern Africa does not in any way warrant this linkage. 24. We are aware, of course, of the long-standing divergence of views between the United States and Cuba. This is a regrettable situation. What we cannot understand, much less accept, is why the people of Namibia should be held hostage to that situation. We have searched in vain for a justification of this linkage. 25. Some delegations have expressed their concern about regional security in southern Africa as a whole. Who desires regional peace and security in southern Africa more than the independent States of the region, all of which are newly independent nations? These nations want peace, the peace that is necessary in order for them to concentrate on the urgent tasks of economic and social development. But what peace can here be in southern Africa while that region remains a free hunting-ground for South African troops? What peace can there be in southem Africa while South Africa remains in illegal occupation of the territory of Namibia, from where it conducts its campaign of aggression and destabilization against the neighbouring States? 30. What happens to the dream of the Namibian people is the responsibility of the Western contact group, which has failed to deliver on its promise of a settlement, in spite of all the’ concessions that have been made by SWAP0 and the front-line States on the African side. 31. What happens to the dream of the Namibian people is the responsibility of the United States, which has unjustly placed an embargo on the independence of Namibia. But the United States is a great Power, it can lift this embargo without incurring any loss whatsoever. 26. In his report, the Secretary-General placed his linger squarely on this problem when he stated that: 32. What happens to the dream of the Namibian people is the responsibility of the Council, which is the custodian “These prolonged and intensive consultations have resulted, as far as UNTAG [the United Nations Transition Assistance Group] is concerned, in resolving virtually all the outstanding issues. In fact, we have never before been so close to finality on the modalities of implementing resolution 435 (1978).” [ibid, pam 24.1 “What happens to a dream? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun or fester like a sore and then run? Does it stink like rotten meat or crust and sugar over like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load, or does it explode?’ 33. The dream of the Namibian people may be deferred but it cannot be extinguished, because it is a dream nurtured by a people’s yearning for freedom and justice. It is a dream sanctioned by the norms of international law and supported by a global consensus of the international cornmunity. Once again we invite those which have alienated themselves from this consensus to return to the fold, 34. We in Uganda look forward with great confidence to the day, which cannot be far away, when Namibia will take a seat at this table as an independent and proud African nation. On that day there will be rejoicing throughout the length and breadth of the African continent. But, until then, the struggle must continue by all means necessary.

I believe I speak for the Chairman of the Group of African States and the representative of the Chairman of the Non- Aligned Movement-although I have not had the opportunity to check with either of them-or at any rate express their sentiments when I say, as we move towards the end of our lengthy consideration of the situation in Namibia, which we began a week ago, that we owe everything to the friends, supporters and sympathizers who have made statements during the debate or shown great patience in sitting here throughout the long and sometimes very uncomfortable hours to show their solidarity with the people of Namibia-especially at this time when their own struggles, as well as the struggle of the people of Namibia, are becoming more and more difficult. So on behalf of those two gentlemen, the Chairman of the Group of African States and the representative of the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, I express our most sincere gratitude to you all. 36. As we all know, the current meetings of the Council were convened following the expeditious fulfilment by the Secretary-General of the mandate given him in resolution 532 (1983) to consult with the parties concerned, as provided for in the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. We felt that at the end of the fulfilment of this mandate it was necessary to call on the Council to meet. The Secretary-General’s report outlines in very clear terms the positions of the respective parties. While, as we had all expected, SWAPO, through its President, was prepared to tell the Secretary-General that it was ready to sign a ceasefire agreement with South Africa anywhere at any time, the apartheid regime of South Africa, on the other hand, continued to be characteristically unto-operative. To their credit, however, the South African leaders have also admitted-and the Secretary-General’s report makes this 37. Those are the positions of the two parties. Therefore, we felt that the international community must be told of South Africa’s position. We also felt that certain tendencies needed to be first explained and then formally rejected. We have tried to do just that in our statements. It is therefore, our hope that at the end of this debate those irtelevant issues which have been exposed will be known for what they are and that nobody will come back to the Council or go to any international forum to explain the lack of progress or the unwillingness to facilitate progress in terms of those issues. We have characterized them as linkage. 38. To achieve this objective in a formal way we have submitted to the Council a draft resolution. It aims at exposing, denouncing and condemning that linkage and those behind it and, finally, rejecting it once and for all. It is our hope that, after this series of meetings, nobody will ever in any way, directly or indirectly, try to bring the issue of linkage into the decolonization of Namibia equation. 39. The draft resolution before the Council has been worked out and couched in language that would reflect the international consensus that has been expressed here and in many other places that we need to move forward with the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) and to reject anything that stands in the way of its implementation. 40. Draft resolution S/16085/Rev.l tries in an honest way to meet the concerns of all members of the Council who in different ways have told the Council-and therefore themselves-that all the issues relevant to resolution 435 (1978) have been cleared up; people who have told the Council-and therefore themselves-that there should be nothing in the way of implementing resolution 435 (1978). All their concerns have been taken into account in the draft resolution. 41. The sponsors of this draft resolution-Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Togo, Zaire and Zimbabwe-had hoped that all 15 members of the Council would support it, because the document is intended to be an honest summary of our consensus position. If members look at it they will see that that is what we are trying to do. 42. However, it became apparent that some members found that they could not go along with everything we had said in the document. Their positions have been explained to us, and we have tried to reflect them and accommodate 43. As a last resort we looked at draft resolution S/16085/Rev.l again, and this is where the document that will be issued very soon as S/16085/Rev.2 enters the picture. I ask members to look at !V16085/Rev.l, operative paragraph 9, and here they will see our lastditch effort to bring everyone on board. I should like now to introduce orally the revisions we have made at the last moment. 50. Accordingly, at the risk of being thought overoptimistic, I should like to stress the common thread which has run through our debate. It may be that my delegation is over-optimistic, but we have listened carefully not only to the rhetoric but also to the views expressed in the corridors and in private negotiations. We do not think the problem is so very difficult. It is a much easier problem than many of those which are on the permanent agenda of this Council. Therefore, let me stress some points which we trust all delegations support. 44. At the end of operative paragraph 9, the date “1 December 1983” should be changed to read “31 December 1983”. If anyone says that that is not a concession-from one day to another 30 days-then I do not know what a concession is. The operative paragraph, as revised, should now read: 51. First, the Secretary-General has fulfilled his mandate under resolution 532 (1983) with great skill and determination. He has taken matters forward to the point where virtually all outstanding issues have been resolved. Collectively and individually, in support of the Secretary- General, and with his assistance, we must all continue to work for peaceful and early independence in Namibia. “Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of this resolution as soon as possible and not later than 31 December 1983.” 45. Operative paragraph 10 has also been revised. The words “not later than 31 December 1983” should be replaced by the words “as soon as possible following the Secretary-General’s report**. The operative paragraph, as amended, should thus read as follows: 52. Secondly, there is deep concern about the delay in securing Namibian independence. Implementation of the settlement plan is an urgent requirement. “Decides to remain actively seized of the matter and to meet as soon as possible following the Secretary- General’s report for the purpose of reviewing progress on the implementation of. . .‘* 53. Thirdly, the Council cannot accept that the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola should be a precondition for the implementation of a Namibian settlement. These are separate issues. The rest of the wording remains the same. 46. Until the very last minute before the President called this meeting to order our negotiating efforts were continuing. We have now reached the end of those efforts. We should like to thank all the members of the Council for taking such an understanding and sympathetic position and being so helpful in facilitating the negotiations. It is now up to the members of the Council, each delegation individually, to show us what their attitudes, their views and their positions are regarding the document before us. Once again we should like to express our sincere gratitude, and once again we wish to say that it is the intention of the sponsors of this draft resolution that when we come back to this chamber to discuss the question of Namibia there will no longer be any talk about linkage. 54. Fourthly, members of the Council can see no justitication whatever for the presence of South African troops in Angola. South Africa should withdraw its forces at once. 55. Fifthly, despite its many other preoccupations, the Council must keep the question of Namibia under active review. 56. We all agree, I trust, that the fruits of seven years of persistent negotiations should not be cast aside. The progress made so far must not be undervalued. It is important that the Council’s objective remains the peaceful implementation of an internationally accepted settlement in accordance with resolution 435 (1978).

I call on the representative of the United Kingdom, who wishes to make a statement before the voting, 57. My delegation has no difficulty in endorsing wholeheartedly these propositions. But we know that it is far simpler to state the objective than to achieve it. We agree with the assessment of the President of France that the task is difficult but possible. We can see the top of the hill, but there is a chasm between us and it. The contact group has been seeking to bridge that chasm. It is a slow process, but in the last few years we have added one span after another to the bridge. The Secretary-General has now added a further span or two. As a result, we are definitely nearer to the other side.

My remarks may sound slightly optimistic given the situation we are in, namely, a lunch hour without lunch and a resolution which, it appears, may not command a consensus as my delegation had profoundly hoped it would. We worked hard to try to make our hopes realities. 49. Although our efforts met with only partial success, it remains the object and hope of my delegation that the 59. At the conclusion of his report [S/159433, the Secretary-General says that he is determined to continue his efforts to achieve early independence for Namibia. He deserves our sincere gratitude for his achievements thus far, and for his clear analysis, and deserves our active support in his further work, The Secretary-General calls on all concerned to make another major effort. My Government is ready to play its part in such an effort. We shall do so in pursuance of our membership of the contact group and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s very close ties of friendship and cooperation with the front-line States. The burden placed upon these countries is of great concern to us, and in our bilateral relations and our support for the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, we shall continue to do all we can to assist. 60. This will undoubtedly be a theme of the bilateral discussions which the British Minister of State responsible for African Affairs, Mr, Malcolm Rifkind, will be undertaking in Zimbabwe and Angola when he visits those two countries and South Africa early next month. Likewise, we were honoured to welcome President Samora Machel of Mozambique to London on a State visit last week, and saddened that immediately beforehand his country was once again subjected to a raid by South African forces. My Government deplored this further serious violation of Mozambique’s sovereignty, just as it has deplored all other acts of violence in the region. 61. I set out the British Government’s position on 23 May [2439th meeting] during our last debate and I will not rehearse it now. But I will turn to the draft resolution in document S/l6085/Rev.2. We are somewhat concerned at the burden which the Council is placing upon the Secretary-General by asking him to make a further report in a short period, My delegation has reservations about the reference in the tifth preambular paragraph to the use of Namibia as a springboard for destabilization. I must stress that we do not interpret the draft resolution as prejudging decisions to be taken by the Council in a later meeting. 62. In the spirit of moving forward to consensus, my Government is able to support the draft resolution in its present form because it endorses the approach followed by the Secretary-General, because it is consistent with our objective of securing the earliest possible implementation of resolution 435 (1978), and because we do not believe that Namibian independence should be delayed by matters outside the scope of resolution 435 (1978).

The members of the Council ‘have now received draft resolution !Y16085/Rev.2, which includes the oral revisions, introduced by the representative of Zimbabwe, that were made to draft resolution s/16085/Rev.l. 65. I shall now put to the vote draft resolution S/l6085/Rev.2. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: China, France, Guyana, Jordan, Malta, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Togo, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Zaire, Zimbabwe. Against: None. Abstaining: United States of America. . The draft resolution was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention [resolrction 539 (1983)].

I shall now call upon the members of the Council who wish to make a statement after the vote.

The delegation of the Soviet Union voted for the draft resolution, which was prepared by the African countries and other non-aligned States that are members of the Council. 68. The Council’s decision today on the problem of Namibia is a step in the right direction, since once again it condemns South Africa for its continued illegal occupation of Namibia and for its obstruction of the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). The resolution also rejcts the demand of South Africa and the United States, to link Namibia’s independence with extraneous issues, and calls upon South Africa to co-operate with the Secretary- General forthwith in order to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations plan on the independence of Namibia. The resolution also establishes a timetable for the presentation of the Secretary-General’s report on the matter and provides that if necessary, measures shall be taken against South Africa under the Charter of the United Nations. 69. Thus the resolution strengthens the role of the United Nations in settling the Namibian question, which is a positive factor. 70. At the same time, our delegation must point out that, in the process of consultation, the original draft resolution was weakened. The reason is well known to everyone. As 77. .The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Lusaka, President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, wishes to make a statement. I now call on him to do so. 71. The overwhelming majority of countries whose representatives spoke in the Security Council supported the imposition of such sanctions if South Africa continued its sabotage of a Namibian settlement. However, the negative attitude shown by the United States and certain other Western countries virtually threatened a veto, and once more played into Pretoria’s hands. There is nothing new in this. It has been confirmed once again that the United States and certain other Western friends of South Africa ‘continue, under a smokescreen of pious hopes, promises and optimism, to protect the racist rkgime against intemational sanctions, and in this way are helping Pretoria to play for time grid to block the granting of independence to Namibia. Whatever the representatives of those countries may have said in the Council, the facts and those coun- 1 tries’ actual positions speak for the&&s. 1 . _. 78. Mr. LUSAKA: Mr. President, I thank you once more for giving me the opportunity to speak. On behalfof the United Nations Council for Namibia, I should like to thank all delegations that joined us in the deliberations which are now coming to a close on the question of Namibia. 79. I should like also to thank you personally, Sir, for the efficient way in which you have guided our deliberations. These have been difficult times for you, and also for all the other members of the Security Council. Under your guidance, however, the Council has adopted yet another resolution on Namibia, resolution 539 (1983). 80. The United Nations Council for Namibia regards the resolution just adopted as an important one. TheSecurity Council has joined the General Assembly in rejecting the linking of the independence of Namibia with any extraneous and irrelevant issues. It has declared that the independence of Namibia cannot be held hostage to the resolution of issues that are alien to its resolution 435 (1978).

My Government -wholly supports the spirit of the resolution which has just been adopted. We share the ardent desire of the members of the Council-those who wish to contribute to a productive solution to the problem-to move Namibia towards independence without further delay within the framework of Council resolution 435 (1978). Many have worked hard and sincerely to that end, no one more effectively than the Secretary-General. My Government has worked hard and will continue to work to overcome obstacles that staxid in the way of Namibian independence. 81. Since South Africa has confirmed that all outstanding issues relevant to the implementation of resolution 435 (1978) have been resolved, we must now start moving towards the implementation of the United Nations plan. SWAP0 has already declared that it is prepared, in principle, to accept an electoral system based on either proportional representation or the single-member constituency system. Thus, South Africa must now communicate to the Secretary-General its choice of electoral system. It is imperative that the electoral system to be used for the elections of the Constituent Assembly should be determined prior to the adoption by the Security Council of the enabling resolution for the implementation of the United Nations plan. 73. Nond the less, there are in resolution 539 (1983) certain elements that cause us concern. The resolution contains a number of references to past resolutions which the United States Government did not support. 74. Moreover, the time-frame provided by the resolution represents, in our judgement, a genuine effort in good faith to strike difficult and delicate balance. On the one hand, the Council must do nothing that would in any way encourage delay for the sake of delay. On the other hand, the same delicacy and the same difficulty counsel against unreasonable or unrealistic constraints on the negotiating flexibility required to overcome remaining obstacles to Namibian independence. My Government has some reservations on this score with regard to the language of resolution 539 (1983), although I reiterate that in our judgement it represents a laudable effort to strike the right balance. 82. We have spoken in this debate with dne voice. All of us, including the representative of South Africa, have accepted that the United Nations plan on Namibia is the only basis for an internationally recognized settlement. As the Secretary-General has stated in his recent report, the continued failure to resolve the Namibian question has disastrous results for all the countries in the region and“‘it is in the interest of absolutely no one to have this situation continue” [ibid, para. 27J. We must therefore settle this problem now. 83. There are those among us who have joined with South Africa in urging us not to set any deadlines for the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). How long can this situatidn be allowed to continue? How long can we let SouA Africa prevaricate while causing maximum damage to Namibia and to the itidependellt African States in the region? 75. Finally, we are disturbed by the resolution’s implicit allusions to possible future action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We regard such all& sions as premature. Progress is being made in the negotiations aimed at securing the implementation of resolution 435 (1978). This progress, substantial progress, was reported by the Secretary-General in his report [S/159433. 85. When one reflects on the developments surrounding the Namibian question since the adoption of Council resolution 435 (1978), one would conclude that all along South Africa has been playing for time to manufacture reasons for not complying with that resolution. Now that South Africa has no objection to any issues related to resolution 435 (1978), it is time to move as fast as possible before the fertile imagination of the South African racist regime comes up with other issues which they may directly link to resolution 435 (1978). 86. If South Africa refuses to co-operate with the Secretary-General, it must be made to realize that the inability to settle the Namibian question would spell disaster for itself. The Security Council would have to adopt at its next meeting on the Namibian question appropriate measures under the Charter of the United Nations. 87. As long as South Africa believes that it has nothing to lose by obstructing the implementation of resolution 435 (1978), we cannot expect it to comply. The racist regime in South Africa is completely amoral; it is a regime which cannot be expected to be moved by conscience. Only when it realizes what its losses would be for refusing to co-operate with the United Nations, could we expect it to adopt a realistic attitude towards the resolution of the Namibian problem. 88. If by 31 December 1983 South Africa has not cooperated with the Secretary-General, the Security Council would have the obligation to adopt appropriate measures under the Charter, thus demonstrating a higher standard of morality and justice. I should like to repeat here what I stated before the Council on 20 October, at the beginning of our current deliberations. I said then: “It is inconceivable that, for nearly two decades now, apartheid South Africa, whose social and political standards are indistinguishable from m&m, has been allowed to make a mockery of our shared sense of justice. Let us ‘not allow ourselves to share in apartheid South Africa’s burdensome guilt. Let us resolve to have the political will to save present as well as succeeding generations in southern Africa from the scourges of a catastrophic war. Let us resolve to reassert the authority, efficacy and moral superiority of the United Nations. And let us begin with Namibia, the saddest chapter of our shared history.” [2481st meeting, para. 91.1 90. Let me conclude by reminding the Council of the words of the British philosopher, Edmund Burke, that “for evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing.” We should not be condemned by history for doing nothing in the face of the evil that has been allowed, for too long, to cast its shadow of darkness over the peop!e of Namibia.

Mr. Peter Mueshihange, Secretary for Foreign Relations of SWAPO, to whom the Council extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure, wishes to make a statement. I call on him. _.. 92. Mr. MUESHIHANGE: Mr. President, I have already congratulated you during my first intervention in thii debate, but I should like once again to state how pleased we are at the way you have conducted the debate. 93. On behalf of my movement, SWAP0 and the entire embattled but struggling people of Namibia, I wish to thank all the participants in this debate that has just been concluded. 94. Our determination to tight and defeat the enemy which has occupied our land for so long has once more been reinforced by the decision which has just been taken. 95: The people of Namibia, who yearn for the freedom and independence of their motherland, have for a long time now been looking to this body to remove the obstacles that have been put in their way. On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to assure the Council that we shall never relent until every inch of Namibia is liberated, including Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands. I must say that we, the people of Namibia, are determined to achieve that objective no matter how long it takes us. That is our duty. We only ask the Council to support our action in order to enable us to carry on our struggle. 96. I wish to conclude by thanking especially the members of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement in the Council for all their hard work in conducting consultations with the other members. Organization of work

Before adjourning the meeting, I should like to announce that the Security Council will meet at 4 o’clock this afternoon to take up the item entitled, “The situation between Iran and Iraq”.

Mr. President, I am sorry to intervene at this late hour, but I desire some claritication. My understanding was that you would convene an informal meeting at about this time. How do you intend to go about it, since this. morning’s meeting has run rather

I shall consult with my colleagues concerning the holding of i%e meeting rose at 3.05 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout tbe world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCUREk LES PUBLICATIONS DES NA’iiONS UNIES Les publications des Nations bnies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences dtpositaires du monde entier. Informei-vous aup& de votre libraire ou adressez-vous h : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou GenZtve. KAK I-IOJIYYMTb H3&4H$III dPTAHM3AUMkl .OB%tiMHEHHbIX HAUM~ Msnamin Oprmutnsauwti 06aenwHemrblx ~r&ilf MOXHO K~IIS~T~~ B xHmxHbIx hfara3HHax ~are~~c~~ax~~Bcexpail~~axhf~pa.Ha~omi~ecnpa~x~ 06 H~~~H~~~XBB~~I~MKHUXHOM Mara3siHe wui nHumre no‘tipecy: Oprrurnsamx OBaenmieziHbtx Hauti, Cexuwa no npohaxce rsnamit& HbKI-tiopx WIU ‘H(eHetia. ’ COMCi CONSEGUiR PIh&CIdNEi *bk LAS ;GACIONES UNIDAS - Las publEaciones de las Nacidnes Unidas es& en venta en librerfas y casas distibuidoras en todas panes de1 mundo. Consulte a su lib&o o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas, Secci6n de Ventas, Nueva Y&k o Ginebra. . * .,. . . , : , . - - -.-- LL:~O io Unittd Nations, New’ York 00300 90-60205~September 1992-2,050